Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.ysu.edu!news.radio.cz!newsbastard.radio.cz!news.radio.cz!CESspool!nntp.uio.no!newsfeeds.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!howland.erols.net!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!news.utell.co.uk!usenet
From: brian@shift.utell.net (Brian Somers)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: One stupid question and one not so stupid
Date: 4 Apr 1997 15:14:53 GMT
Organization: Awfulhak Ltd.
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <5i35td$i6r@ui-gate.utell.co.uk>
References: <01bc4082$3f381f20$8fb108c2@owl.wplus.net>
Reply-To: brian@awfulhak.org, brian@utell.co.uk
NNTP-Posting-Host: shift.utell.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Newsreader: knews 0.9.8
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:38419
In article <01bc4082$3f381f20$8fb108c2@owl.wplus.net>,
"Igor N Kovalenko" <infoh@mail.wplus.net> writes:
> Hi FreeBSD gurus,
>
> could someone explain what is *right* release of FreeBSD?
>
> Surfing around website I learned that basically there are two branches:
> "current" and "stable".
Current == 3.0
Stable == 2.2.*
RockSolidButLackingFeatures == 2.1.*
> But looking at FTP for download I see "release-2.1.7" and "release 2.2.1",
> as well as "FreeBSD-stable" and "FreeBSD-current". For my impression
> "FreeBSD-whatever" dirs contain something different from "release xxx"
> dirs.
FreeBSD-whatever is the "current sources" of that branch - ie. what
would be released if a release was done "right now".
> So, my stupid question is what is correlation between "release" numbers and
> "branches"? Which release belongs to which branch? What is *last* "stable"
> release?
When 2.1.7 was released, it was the "stable" branch.
Now 2.2.* is the "stable" branch :) Confused ?
> What exactly (please, URL) I should download to install it from DOS hard
> disk? I'm intended to do it in *this* way, so please do not suggest me FTP
> installation.
A good choice IMHO. At least if things go pear-shaped, you've still got
the distribution :) I'd suggest 2.2 at
ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/2.2.1-RELEASE/[A-R]*
ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/2.2.1-RELEASE/bin/*
ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/2.2.1-RELEASE/manpages/*
Creating the following local stuff:
C:\FREEBSD\[A-R]*
C:\FREEBSD\BIN\*
C:\FREEBSD\MANPAGES\*
> And BTW, can someone say is there any serious advantage in *BSD over last
> versions of Linux kernel (2.0.x)? I'm not a dumb DOS guy, so feel free to
> dig into details :-) I also heard some splatter that Linux is not so stable
> as FreeBSD, is it true? To be specific, I'm going to use one of them for
> WEB server.
I'm not qualified to say - I don't know linux well.
> One advantage of Linux I found: it is MUCH easier to understand what is
> appropriate distribution, looking at their websites ... :-)
Perhaps, I've never looked at their websites (shows how much I know).
> Thanks
--
Brian <brian@awfulhak.org> <brian@freebsd.org>
<http://www.awfulhak.demon.co.uk>
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour !